In this paper, the attempt is made to write a history of ...



Perspectives on Victimology

The Science, the Historical Context, the Present

by

Gerd Ferdinand Kirchhoff, Prof. Dr. jur.

Professor of Victimology, Tokiwa Daigaku Mito, Department of International Applied Studies

Graduate School of Human Sciences, Graduate School of Victimology

Tokiwa International Victimology Institute

The author is indebted to Paul C. Friday, Department of Criminal Justice, University of North Carolina in Charlotte, USA for valuable suggestions to improve this paper. The paper was published in Kiyo, Journal of the Tokiwa University Mito, College of International Studies, 2006 vol.1 .

Globalization and Internationalization are terms that are used to characterize contemporary trends. Victimology fits into these trendy terms: From the beginning on, victimology was an international scholarly activity. This paper looks into international aspects of victimological ideas and at the worldwide important ideological backdrop. After a short introduction into Victimology, this paper describes victimological activities at Tokiwa University. The paper then looks deeper into problems of interdisciplinary sciences. It reports on known but overlooked facts in the history, and how the victim has been discussed in scholarly discourses over the past 250 years. This paper sheds light on some of the neglected areas in the history of scientific thinking about victims. It then returns to worldwide victimology and its crystallization in Tokiwa University.

Victimology – History of Victimology – Enlightenment - Classical School and Victimology – Positivism – Tokiwa University

I. Introduction?

Before we look into the long-term historical aspects of victimology, we must know what this field is. Victimology is the scientific study of the social science of (man - made) victims, victimizations by Human Rights violations including crime and the (existing and desirable) reactions towards both.

As a social science Victimology assembles and generates knowledge in what could be described as a circular process. The iter victimologicus[i] is symbolized by a sequence of distinct steps conceptualizing the process of studying Victimology as a cycle of foci . It enables one to start at any point. One step leads to the next. Some studies go the whole circle, some go only a part of it. Some research may go through it over and over again. Practically, you can start the cycle at any point. This victimological journey leads from asking previously unasked (or unanswered) questions to definitions and from there to a knowledge base of what we know already about the problem. From here steps take you to measurement problems and operationalization and description, to the collection of data and information, and to the analyses of data. The end of the circle leads to the interpretation of patterns, regularities, associative relationships and probabilities, offering guides to the establishment of hypotheses either derived from existing theories or cautiously formulated from the interpretation of the patterns observed in data. These hypotheses might be further explored. This cannot be done without the statement of theoretical attempts from which further hypotheses or expectations can be derived. From these, expectations on possible data can be formulated, expectations and predictions that lead us to new stations in the circle.

It does not really matter where you – as a student or as a researcher - enter this circle. What is important, however, is that in the twenty first century, Victimology no longer can mainly rest on speculation – it has matured to a social science and , it is therefore primarily interested in reality as it is open to our experience. Victimologists are not philosophers or normative thinkers any longer.

Interdisciplinary sciences like Victimology can best be symbolized by a ring of intersecting circles. The single circles represent the contributions of other fields to victimology. They intersect with their neighbors[ii] and with other contributors of the ring. The area which these contributors share with the inner circle symbolize the contributions of this science to Victimology. The figure demonstrates that there is a free area which is NOT determined by contributors of some sorts. A typical field of independent Victimology must be defined. Victimology is a separate science will establish itself as an own field when and insofar it has its own area as well, an own a unique area which is NOT fully determined by its contributors.

Many “home faculties” have contributed to this new science. For a while, topics like “The Contribution of the Victim to the Genesis of Crime”[iii] or “The Victim in the Criminal Justice System”[iv] were discussed. Scholars with a legal background defined these as the center of the new field, as the essence of Victimology[v]. They occupied the new field immediately as their territory. They tried to prescribe what Victimology should be – a part of (their) criminology. They tried to prescribe what questions it should ask[vi]. This domination ended when victimologists realized that there is the large field of victim assistance, and there are other activity oriented applications of knowledge about victims and their needs. These areas need to be included, fields of knowledge in which the legal orientation does not really help. The usual general “stocktaking”[vii] is but one step in the circular itinerary described above.

Fig.1 The Additive Model of the Study of Victimology

[pic]e

If we evaluate the emerging international situation, we pretty much deal with the contribution of the home faculties of victimologists to Victimology. Often – too often victimologists cover the contribution of their home faculty to the new field (Fig.1). But victimology is more than the sum of the relevant contributors.

Fig.2 The Substantial Model of the Study of Victimology

The development here corresponds to that found in other fields e.g. in nursing, counseling or social work[viii]. In the beginning it is kind of necessary to teach the contributions of the home faculties to a new field (contributive model of study). But it is not enough. It is our task to develop the center area in the illustration of victimology (Fig.2) and to explore what is the specific victimological substance (substantive model of study), different from what the home faculties are (already) able to say.

As previously stated, victimology becomes a separate science when and insofar it has its own area which is NOT exclusively determined by its contributor fields. A victimologist knows more than the contribution of the own “home faculty” to the science. A victimologists is a social scientist in an interdisciplinary science.

II. Thoughts on the Historical Development of Victimology.

Interdisciplinary sciences pose a problem when we try to trace the historical development – Victimology is no exception.

Walklate[ix] observes: new areas of inquiry have made efforts to create for themselves an intellectual history – even if these areas are multidisciplinary in character. Of course we cannot say that Victimology exists from a definite date on. There is, however, a discussion about victimization, victims and abuse of power. When (especially influential) people – be they intellectual philosophers or political leaders - react to this discussion, then the discussion is taken seriously.

Saponaro[x] (2005) saw that in Europe scholars often teach the history of concepts more intensely than the internal structure of the field. In Europe scholars tend to believe that we understand a field best by knowing about “its history”. Looking at the “history” is beneficial. Certainly this has practical reasons too – scientists do not want to omit important contributions of those who dealt with similar topics before. We want to know on whose shoulders we stand. In research publications, we place ourselves into a historical line of scientific development, into a school of thoughts[xi].

Thomas Kuhn[xii] is convincing: science – and Victimology is no exception – is nothing else than a specific construction of reality. Different paradigms indeed determine different realities. We take notice of the influence of the “backcloth”, the leading contextual philosophical ideologies and of their intentions. We will have to deal with the influence of the Enlightenment and Positivism since these two schools have deeply influenced social science in the Western culture.

When was the victim an issue of scientific discussion for the first time?

Usually, textbooks of Victimology refer to Hans von Hentig and to Benjamin Mendelsohn as the first victimologists, the “Founding Fathers” of Victimology[xiii]. Hans von Hentig is the famous author of early pioneering scientific contributions[xiv]. Usually reference is given to Benjamin Mendelsohn, especially to his presentation in 1947 in Rumania as the first occasion that the word Victimology was used and a new science, victimology, was designed[xv]. It appears that the history of Victimology starts with these two authors in the fifth decade of the 20th century.

Surely, the topic “victim” is much older – Schafer (1975) even constructs a “Golden Age of the Victim” which he located in ancient Mesopotamia, from where the influential Code of Hammurabi came to us[xvi]. This Golden Age is seen as era when the victim alone determined what happened to the offender[xvii] Usually ancient norms mentioning the victim are quoted without closer analyses of their context. For the development in Japan, they are important since modern Japan is developed in interaction with Western ideas.

The topic “victims” can be found on the scientific agenda predating these Founding Fathers[xviii] .

A word of caution is in place: if we use the word “scientific” today, we have in mind the connotations of the twenty first century. Scholarly writing in the eighteenth century was different. The arsenal of science - the scholarly methodology at that time - did not include the same tools we have today. It would be utterly unfair to deny scholarship to those who do not have “our” methodological equipment.

III. Cesare Beccaria in His Time

In this meaning, one of the first scholarly writers to deal with victimization and its consequences is Cesare Beccaria, the Italian “genius” who is placed by most criminologists at the cradle of criminology.

Marvin E. Wolfgang 1999 called his contribution the most important document in the history of Western criminal law culture. Beccaria is widely known as the father of the “Classical School of Criminology”, a school in the 18th century. Members of this (informal) group believed in rational choices, and in logical deductions from a more abstract concept to practical applications. The ideological principles of this school are similar to those which governed the criminal legislation in Europe hundred years later. The basic principles Beccaria coined, are still valid today. Germany’s criminologists reflect Beccaria’s high reputation by naming their highest scholarly award the Beccaria Medal[xix].

Let us look at this man and in which context he stands. Cesare Bonesagna Marquis de Beccaria was born March 15, 1738 in Milan, at that time part of the Austrian empire of the Habsburgs, soon to be governed by Maria Theresia (1717–1780)[xx]

He received his formal education from Jesuits in Parma before he studied mathematics, philosophy and economics. Jesuits, an order of monks, the intellectual elite of the Roman Catholic Church, had and have a legendary reputation as brilliant thinkers. They seem to adhere often to an innovative opposition to conservative traditional ideologists. Beccaria turned out to be a dignified disciple. From March 1763 to January 1764 he wrote on the book which was to bring him legendary fame and the highest accolades in Europe. In Italy it was published July 1764 - anonymously: Beccaria rightly feared the revengeful rage of the powerful, the nobility and the Roman Catholic Church. He wanted to be the witness of the truth, not its martyr.

During the preceding eight hundred years, the Roman Catholic church had molded important areas of the European culture. The Roman Catholic Church owned donated properties in all parts of Europe, from Spain to Poland, from Denmark to Italy[xxi]. No wonder that it strived for an easy administration of its – usually tax exempt – real estate under one legal system. It was interested in a unified (of course Roman Catholic) Europe. It managed, in alliance usually with the powerful nobility, to gain control over the accepted definitions of reality.

Beccaria’s time usually is called the “Enlightenment”. For the first time in European history, eminent philosophers and political scientists insisted that rationality should be the ruling principle of explanation. Authorities like the church in alliance with the feudal rulers of this time, for transparent reasons, maintained that the only ruling principle of explanation was the “Will of God”[xxii]. Of course, this will was known only to them.

God’s will was the justification of the existence of the state. God had created and instituted the state. Kings were “kings by the grace of God”. Therefore, people must obey the authorities[xxiii] - if not, authorities must force them under the will of God. Such magic beliefs were not acceptable for “modern” enlightened people who needed a rational explanation for everything. Enlightened philosophers pronounced the theory of the “contract social”[xxiv]: The state was created by contracts of free people with the aim to serve the greatest happiness of all. Exercising power excessively (not limited by consent) constitutes abuse of power. It creates victims. Not only this:; it gives the justification to overthrow the government. This theory was dynamite: ;it stated the right to resist and the right to abolish abusing authority. It was immediately regarded as a danger to the ruling classes and their power – and Beccaria rightly was afraid to become a martyr of the truth.

The holders of power tried to repress new ideas as much as they could. In this respect the situation was like the situation in Tokugawa Japan, where public discussion of change was regarded as dangerous and reason for prosecution[xxv]. While the Tokugawa feudal establishment was quite successful in controlling what became loud and public, in Europe this kind of social control by the powerful, by church and nobilities, was still effective enough to drive Beccaria into anonymity. But it was too late for a complete oppression of the new ideas.

Beccaria worked in Milan in the communal department of asylums which was the administration of prisons, orphanages, houses for the mentally ill and for the aged. The chief of this administration was from the old distinguished Verri family, a well respected kind of intellectual leaders: Verri assembled equally minded intellectuals in Milan’s “Academia del Pugni”. Here interested people met for intellectual presentations and discussions (pugnare is Latin for “to fight”) - pretty similar to the French “salon” in pre- revolutionary France. Close ties existed between the intellectual circles in Milan and in Paris, letters were exchanged with information about new publications. Political initiatives were planned[xxvi].

Beccaria certainly was familiar with the philosophies of early utilitarism, and with the ideas of Hobbes, Locke and also with the writings of Montesquieu and of Rousseau[xxvii]. Simply for time reasons Bentham does not belong into this line - he published his main writings later than Beccaria. While the modern intellectuals looked for new solutions, the everyday Milanese citizen was confronted with a reality of criminal law that was truly miserable[xxviii].

The application of criminal law was process guided but extremely bloody and cruel: In Milan in 20 years, about seventy seven thousand persons had been sentenced to death or long prison terms (from 1741-1762) – an arithmetic mean of six executions per day! Milan was not even especially terrible – conditions throughout Europe were rather identical. In England for example, the death penalty was described for over 200 different specifically defined crimes. Death penalty was applied in a formal process by judges who sentenced the single offender after a court procedure in which he was found guilty.

Torture was allowed by law and practically omnipresent: suspects as well as witnesses were systematically cruelly tormented to extract “evidence of the truth”. Judges could arbitrarily invent punishments to reflect the perceived outrageousness of the offence. Criminal justice was like a war of the powerful against all who broke their laws. It was a war against criminals who had endangered the “peace of the country”. It served to uphold the power positions of the ruling classes, the feudal nobility and the church. Needless to say that critical thinker were regarded as dangerous.

IV. Beccaria, Read with the Eyes of a Victimologist

What did Beccaria say? What was so dangerous?

He challenges his readers to think independently, to think for themselves. He challenged his readers: Dare to have your own ideas! Dare to know – and do not rely on what others tell you to believe!

Around him he saw a culture where people repeat what others, authorities, have said. Well, that is not reconcilable with the ideals and praxis of an enlightened man. The enlightened man does not accept any authority except for reason. If ideas are not useful for the well being of all, then they are not acceptable (utilitarianism). Rational, reasonable thinking is the only measure against which ideas are to be evaluated.

For these rational thinkers, power must be exercised usefully – that is, to promote the greatest well being of the citizens. “Therefore every act of power is tyrannical which infringes without necessity on the rights of people”[xxix]. That is the enlightened credo of Beccaria.

“Reasonable laws enhance the good of all. They serve the interest of all. Unreasonable laws are biased and they favor: they give all possible power to a small part of the population while leaving all the misery and all suffering to the other person”.

Who are these other persons? These are people in misery, the suffering people?

Today, we call them victims.

Beccaria is very cautious to use this word. His topic is “Abuse of Power”, not victims. He looks at the real relationships between the ruler and the subordinate:

“Then (people) realize the horrors of cruel punishment and torture. Should not the rulers of the world, caught in traditional opinions, wake up by the cries of the oppressed which have been sacrificed regularly to the shameful lack of knowledge and to the cold emotionless indifference of the rich and the powerful? ” [xxx]

These oppressed victims are victims of the ruling classes, of their ignorance and self interest. Rereading the original text of Beccaria, we find a clear engagement on the side of the victims, the powerless. In one occasion he let them complain:

„Argh, these laws are nothing but a covering blanket for power, nothing but sophisticated performances of an adventurous justice. They are nothing but a conspiracy of the powerful to slaughter us with increased certainty as victimized animals on the altar of an insatiable goddess named lust for power[xxxi] ((Beccaria 1788 § 16 p.83 end of page)”(all translations are done by the author). .

Beccaria argues consequently against torture, against the death penalty, and against excessively long prison terms. He is the founder of the humanistic development in criminal law, and his contemporaries rightly realized this. Certainly it would be overstated to call Beccaria an early victimologist. He is a precursor. He discusses the victim with the scientific means of his time[xxxii] – rational thoughts performed to achieve useful results and intellectual freedom .

IV. The Impact in Europe

We, 250 years later, cannot fully imagine the explosive dynamite of Beccaria’s thinking. It was explosive due to the fact that it was received so extremely well by the intellectuals of his time. This “reception” was rather well organized, a cultural political campaign.

One of the leading intellectuals of this time, closely connected to the Encyclopedists, is Voltaire, the famous French philosopher. Voltaire reads the book which is made available by d”Alembert. Voltaire was enthused. He wrote a “Commentary” on the “immortal work” of Beccaria.[xxxiii] Interesting for the victimologist is how he uses real cases to make his political points:

Two famous cases enraged the European intellectual class of this time: There were two scandalous murderers perpetrated by the then criminal justice system in France. First was the murderous assault of the justice system on the Calas family, later another similar assault on the Sirven family[xxxiv]. Voltaire dares to put himself into the shoes of the victim: In one occasion, he describes the torture of Michaela Chaudron – he describes how her torturer brought her into a state in which she confesses to everything the powerful want to hear[xxxv]. Equally powerful he describes the suffering of the Sirven family. Voltaire is not driven by an indecent lust for voyeuristic details. He uses the gruesome details of inflicted injustice to reach his political auditorium. His language is, like Beccaria’s, emotional and full of clarity. Voltaire is passionately politically active on the side of the victims. In the Calas affaire, Voltaire rallied with his friends for several years to confront the King of France and his judges in an open, dangerous and risky campaign. They made public that justice victimized and killed innocent people to serve devotedly the lust for the power inherent in the feudal system. Voltaire was the first to persistently demand state compensation for such abuses of power – and he was successful. Due to the organized opposition of the intellectuals, the two judicial murder stories enraged Europe’s public opinion.

In Paris, Denise Diderot (173-1784), another leading intellectual of the Enlightment and a man working together with Voltaire, was given access to Beccaria’s work. In 1750, the “Encyclopedists”, led by Diderot and d’Alembert, started the famous “Encyclepedie”, a collection of all what humans really know [xxxvi]. We cannot imagine how this immense enterprise - 17 vol. in print, 11 vol. drawings – influenced its time. Jesuits and professors of the Sorbonne tried in vain to convince the French king to prohibit such a “shameful attempt”. The king’s maitresse Madame de Pompadur side by side with the monarch’s chief censor Malherbes opposed in favor of this enterprise - does it not bring fame for France, coupled with lots of money? Czaresse Katharina of Russia, a fan of Diderot, finances Diderot’s library and pays him a handsome salary. In Paris, tax money from sales of the Encyclopedia flood into the king’s treasury. Diderot is enthused of Beccaria's work and does his share in making it known over Europe.

Beccaria’s work was quickly translated into all European languages, in Germany alone there are 3 different translations[xxxvii]. The author was awarded high honors: Czaresse Katharina of Russia invited him to become her Minister of Justice with a guarantee to lead the reform of the Russian criminal justice system[xxxviii]. Influenced by enlightened ideas, the son of Maria Theresia, Emperor Joseph II. abolished torture and death penalty (even if only for a short time) in his empire.

Beccaria’s German commenter Ferdinand Hommel[xxxix] not only writes the commentary which is quoted and used in this paper. Hommel, a doctor of law and an experienced practitioner, observing all this political activity, dryly comments that a marriage of both is necessary: juridical dogmatic and practical experience united with the philosophical clarity of the Enlightment. He agreed with most of the ideas of the Italian star and was surprised that many of these ideas have been reflected in his own less widely published more practical – juridical contributions.

In Voltaire’s Commentary we read about Europe in the eighteenth century:

„In all courts of Europe, homicides were committed in the name of law. If one adds to those victims of law the much higher number of victimized heretics, then this part of the world must be regarded as a giant blood stage, crowded by hangmen and victims, surrounded by judges, their servants and spectators.“[xl]

All the related publications in Europe suggest that the victimizations of Calas and of the Sirven family, served to organize a publicity campaign in favor of enlightened ideas and, against the feudal criminal law and against the feudal order. There are indications that the glorious reception of Beccaria’s ideas indeed was well prepared. One example is the collation of papers published by Korn I in 1788 as being a s part of this campaign. Another example is the first pubklic discussion of state compensation for victims[xli]. The campaign in its way molded the public opinion on the way to the French Revolution.

V. The Positivistic Paradigm

Too harsh punishment means abuse of power and victimization. How can we limit the power of the state? How can we protect the victim and – since we all are threatened to be victimized by such a state – how can we protect ourselves? The answer of the classical school is: Respect the Human Rights of criminals (to avoid their victimization) and tame the criminal procedure by prohibiting torture and the death penalty. The remedy is seen in introducing guarantees and limits to the power of the state. Think rationally! was the clarion call of the Classical School.

The discussion centers on the offender and his rights in relation to the state. If criminology is an offender oriented science, here are the root causes for this orientation. Here is not the place to describe the development of criminology and of criminal legal thinking in detail. It must be enough here to state that the classical school developed the justification of punishment on the ideological base of free will and on of individual retribution. The result is the absolute school of criminal justice: punishment is justified alone by the principle of revenging guilt. Other purposes are not valid. The offender decided to commit the crime[xlii]– that was his guilt and the sole justification of punishment.

This absolute school of criminal law, and its dogmatic fixation on free will and retribution of guilt, becomes the favorite whipping boy of a new way of thinking.

The classical school had made its ideological decisions about the free will and rational backdrop of behavior. On this basis, the continental European systems of criminal justice developed. These systems simply assumed that victims were striving for punishment. Since victims could not punish offenders themselves, the state took over. Therefore the state apparently did not have to care for the victim in particular – both had the same interest: punishing the offender. Criminal justice systems are always vertical systems of social control via oppression of the offender. It was not seen as a problem that victims (as witnesses) have nothing but a serving role in these systems[xliii].

In the meantime a scientific revolution had taken place, a change of paradigms occurred: Positivism” became the “new” direction in the philosophy of science which is still today extremely important for sciences generally. Positivism in the eighteenth century elevated the natural sciences to the model of a serious science. This school was founded by the French philosopher and social reformer August Comte (1798 – 1857), who coined the term “sociology” as well.

Positivism declares natural (empirical) sciences to be the sole source of true knowledge. It rejects the cognitive value of philosophical study[xliv]. Positivists rejected theoretical speculation as a means of obtaining knowledge. Positivism declared false and senseless all those problems that could not be verified by experience. Positivism claimed to be a fundamentally new, non-metaphysical ("positive") philosophy, modeled on empirical sciences and providing them with a sound methodology.

In the light of these new ideas, the past revolutionary thoughts, the classical school, looked conservative – and with them the leading authorities in law, administration, state and philosophy as well as – let alone the priests and ministers and their organizations. They saw in positivism the incarnation of the enemy. Later, the different ideologies like communism, nationalism, fascism and so on had their expressed problems with positivism. It is extremely interesting to follow these developments from what is called the “Modernitee” to “Post-Modernitee” and to follow the development of positivism as a school of thoughts into communication theory. But this is not our topic. Our topic is to delineate how the victim faired in the Western world in light of these new developments.

VI. Victims and the Positive School

In the history of the „victim“, the Italian School of Positivism became very important. This school represented the „modern” way of constructing the criminal and criminal justice. Three Italian scientists are the famous representatives of this school, Cesare Lombroso, the socialist physician who introduced the positivist method into criminology and the somewhat younger scholars Enrico Ferri and Rafaele Garofalo.

In 1884 Enrico Ferri, 1856–1929, Italian lawyer and, disciple of Lombroso, publishes in 1884 his “Sociologia criminale”. He opposes the classical school, and its unproven reliance on free will and retribution of guilt. The retributive action of the past must be substituted by crime prevention and by “positive” reactions, argued Ferri. . Ferri very clearly postulates that one important new goal of justice must be: to indemnify the victim. Indemnification takes two routes: one is the indemnification by the offender (that is what we nowadays in Victimology call restitution). The other is the indemnification by the state (that is called nowadays “compensation”.). Enrico Ferri understood the reason for civil law reparation of damage. He understood why classical lawyers maintained that criminal punishment MUST be an additional burden for the offender - in addition to the civil law consequences. But in the view of the empirical reality, the classical way of thinking is a joke, and not taken seriously even by the judges themselves. It was lip service without consequence. In Ferri’s essay of 1895 we read:

“The fundamental principle of the positive system of social defense against crime is that of indemnification for damage, on which the positive school has always dwelt, in combination with radical, theoretical, and practical reforms. Reparation of damage suffered by the victims of crime may be regarded from three different points of view:

1) As an obligation of the criminal to the injured party;

(2) as an alternative for imprisonment for slight offences committed by

occasional criminals[xlv]; and

(3) as a social function of the State on behalf of the injured person, but also in the indirect and not less important interest of social defense.”

In another chapter he wrote: “

The Positivists believe: if the individual ought to be always responsible for the crimes which he commits, he ought also to be always indemnified for the crimes of which he is the victim. The State must indemnify individuals for the damage caused by crimes which it has not been able to prevent[xlvi]”.

Italy at that time had already a public fund financed by fines. This fund was used to compensate for wrongfully sentenced offenders who had become victims of the justice system. Ferri proposes to widen its scope: Compensation for victims of crime is a social function of the state, compensation is part of social law. It was recompense for the violation of the social contract.

These ideas are voiced worldwide: In the meantime, the International Criminalistic Association is founded, international cooperation in different branches of the criminal justice system is getting more and more popular: In 1890, its General Assembly discussed in Christiania, Denmark victim related topics[xlvii]

In the final decisions of this congress they state: In cases of simple assault, the accused should NOT be sentenced if the defendant restituted the victim. This was exactly in line with Enrico Ferri’s postulates.

In the same line, the International Prison Conference in 1885 demanded in Paris: since it is the task of the state to protect the victim of crime effectively, the state has to compensate the victim. Compensation, a public function of the state, should be financed by a fund from all fines.

Edwin Sutherland, the nestor of American criminology, quoted the works of Garofalo and Ferri in the chapter on “The Victims of Crime”[xlviii] which deals with the losses caused by crime but does not even mention restitution or compensation[xlix]. A review of the backward methods of Lombroso are more important for him. That is consequent because – his topic is criminology which had in its focus the offender, not the victim..

Different is the reception in Latin America: The conference of 1929 in Cuba[l] informed the Cuban members of the Lawyer’s Association about the results of the discussions in Europe and in the Spanish speaking world. Obviously, the former Spanish colonies in Latin America were much more willing to accept the ideas of reparation. Figueroa lists these countries in which penal reparation is already established: Argentina, Peru, and in 1929 followed Spain and Mexico[li].

7. The Presence in Japan

Victimological precursors exist long before modern victimology. Victim assistance issues are used to move public opinion long before our times.

Opening Japan to modern victimology is attributed to Osamu Nagata[lii]. A first highlight in the receptive period was provided when Koichi Miyazawa 1982 invited the symposium of the World Society of Victimology to Japan[liii]. Since then, Victimology in Japan too is evolving from a contributory model to an integrative independent model[liv].

In Tokiwa University, victimology is taught to the undergraduate students in the Faculty of Human Sciences[lv] and in the Faculty of Applied International Studies.

Graduation theses deal with victimological aspects.

In the faculty of Tokiwa Graduate School of Victimology, there are sociologists, lawyers, psychologists, and social scientists[lvi]. In the wider faculty, we find legal theoreticians, prominent criminal justice and security people and members of the helping professions. They all “do” Victimology. This demonstrates clearly an interdisciplinary social science orientation

A Master Course in Victimology - the only one in Asia - is offered in Tokiwa University. Doctoral dissertations with victimological content are written in the Faculty of Human Sciences Graduate School[lvii]. A scientific library in the Tokiwa International Institute of Victimology (TIVI) and in the Tokiwa Media Center contains about 1100 victimological publications. The number grows constantly. There is a Tokiwa International Victimological Online Bibliography. We find an International Tokiwa Victimology Institute with permanent staff[lviii] and with lively research projects. The research projects center on the training needs of victim assistance programs, on successful coping and on victimization of minorities. There is the Tokiwa International Victimology Journal[lix]. There is joint philological - victimological research in neighboring faculties. The young Asian elite in the field finds its way to the Tokiwa International Postgraduate Courses in Victimology and Victim Assistance[lx]. Japanese Symposia on Victimology are convened at Tokiwa annually, for instance, in 2005 the first one on Child Abuse and the last one on Disaster Victimology[lxi]. We find at Tokiwa an Institute for Clinical Psychology which in future might want to explore synergism with the TIVI in fields like crisis intervention, victim counseling and the like. We find on the premises the Ibaraki Victim Support Center, a state funded private organization of victim support[lxii], and we find personal close relationships to the local women shelter movement[lxiii].

Tokiwa has been the home of a lot of victimological work in contemporary Japan.

It is a logical consequence that the 13th International Symposium of the World Society of Victimology will be hosted by Tokiwa University from September 15 to 20, 2009 in Mito. This event will bring victimologists from all parts of the world to Tokiwa, especially from the Asian countries. The Japanese profile in victimology is already clear[lxiv] For 2009, I expect that in this event, the profile of Asian scholarly victimology and its position in international victimology becomes prominently clear. From such an event, consequences for research, teaching and studying victimology are expected. Victimology will witness, document and analyze the growth of victim assistance in all Asian countries.

-----------------------

[i] [ii] Iter victimologicus (Latin) = The victimological road, the way of Victimology, here the way, the itinerary, in which victimological study and research progresses See Kirchhoff, Gerd Ferdinand: What is Victimology? Tokiwa International Victimology Institute Monographs Series No.1 Vol.1, Tokyo (Seibundo) 2005 (in Japanese and in English language). 68p.

[iii] Of course there is much more intersection than can be illustrated in this simple two dimensional figure.

[iv] It is easy to see what a great topic this is for defense lawyers. If they can divert the burden from the offender and put the blame on the shoulders of the victim, the defense is successful. At least, punishment will be reduced.

[v] This was the name of the first series of victimological international courses in the Inter University Center Dubrovnik which now, 22 years after the conception, are called “Victimology, Victim Assistance and Criminal Justice”.

[vi] E.g. Stephan Schafer and Guenther Kaiser, see Kirchhoff, Gerd Ferdinand: Victimology – History and Basic Concepts. in: Gerd Ferdinand Kirchhoff, Ester Kosovski, Hans Joachim Schneider: International Debates of Victimology. Moenchengladbach (WSVPublishing) 1994 p.1-82, esp.p.11 and 15

[vii] Dahmann, Judith S. and Sasfy, Joseph H.: Victimological Research Agenda Development. Vol.I: Invited papers, Vol. II: Workshop Proceedings. McLean (Virginia) (Mitre Corporation] 1980. This highly influencial workshop concentrated on the c r i m e victim for a simple reason, it was sponsored by the LEAA, part of the Ministry of Justice. The discussion of scientists is – deplorable but not reality – dependent on money and on the political interest of the sponsors.

[viii] “Stocktaking” of victimological research is done e.g. in Kaiser, G., Kury H., H.-J.Albrecht (eds.): Victims and Criminal Justice. Victimological Research: Stocktaking and Prospects. Freiburg (MPI 1991) 3 volumes. For an overview on Japan, see Hidemichi Morosawa’s comprehensive “Trends of Victimological Studies in Japan – Prospects for the Next Decade, Based on an Analysis of Studies carried out during the Past Ten Years. ” pp. 220-231. For a review of recent Japanese literature see Morosawa in FN 65.

[ix]In the last 35 years, this author cooperated in the development of an integrative study of Social Work. It first was additive – professors from various faculties brought in the contributions of their home faculty. It developed to an innovative independent study of social work. The curriculum in this department in Moenchengladbach University of Rhineland University of Applied Sciences changed from a contributory model to a substantial model. That had repercussions. These are immensely positive for the students, for their future employments and for the marketing of the Department of Social Studies. In the German nationwide university ranking by the journal “Die Zeit” and by the Center for University Development (basically sponsored exclusively from universities) , the Moenchengladbach study ranks first – one reason is described in the main text.

[x] Walklate, Sandra: Understanding criminology. Current theoretical debates. Open University Press Buckingham, Philadelphia 1998 p. 2

[xi] Armando Saponaro is chair of Victimology and Bioethics, Law Faculty in Bari, Italy.(oral communication, Mito 2005. See Armando Saponaro: Victimologia origini – concetti – tematite. Milano 2004 (giuffre editore) 188p.

[xii] In research reports, it is customary to summarize what is known already in the field (history included) and to justify why nevertheless this research still is needed (compare Hans Dieter Schwind: Methodik und Methodenprobleme in : Kriminologie, Eine praxisorientierte Einfuehrung mit Beispielen), Heidelberg (Kriminalistik Verlag) 13.edition 2003 p.159.)

Scientific work is not mainly discovery of new findings - to a large part, scientific work is repetition and rewriting of known facts. If we master this body of knowledge and if we interpret it, we have achieved a lot – and we can be very proud if in our life time we, are able to contribute to the increase of this science a little bit.

[xiii]Kuhn, Thomas: 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd edition, enlarged, 1970. 3rd edition, 1996. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[xiv] Instead of all: Morosawa 2002 p, 52 or Walklate 2005 p. 12

[xv] Hans von Hentig: The Criminal and his Victim. Studies in the Sociobiology of Crime, preface by Marvin E. Wolfgang . reprint from 1948 , New York (Schocken Books) 1979, Chapter XII from p.379 – 450 has the subtitle :” The contribution of the Victim to the Genesis of Crime”

[xvi] Hanoch Hoffmann: What did Mendelsohn really say? In : Sarah Ben David and Gerd Ferdinand Kirchhoff, eds.) International Faces of Victimology , Moenchengladbach (WSVPublishing) 1992, p.89-104 with exhaustive references. See TIVI-BIB in The first time the word was published, was in Frederic Wertham “Show of Violence” 1948/49 (reprint New York 1969). Compare: Mendelsohn, Benjamin: Une nouvelle branch de la science bio-psycho-sociale – la victimologie. In: Revue Internationale de Criminologie et Police Technique 10 (1956) p. 95-109

[xvii] Stephen Schafer: Restitution to victims of crime. London, Chicago 1960.

The same: The Victim and His Criminal – a study in functional responsibility. New York 1968

[xviii] – in absence of a functioning criminal justice system of modern provenience, a doubtful privilege.

[xix] Victimologists who work precisely have not neglected these precursors (expression coined by Manzanera) to Victimology, e.g. Hans Joachim Schneider: Viktimologie – Wissenschaft vom Verbrechensopfer. Tuebingen (J.C.B.Mohr) 1975 p. 20f. or Louis Rodriguez Manzanera: Victimologia – el studio de la Victima. Mexico (Ed. Porrua) 8th ed. 2003 p. 8 or Hidemichi Morosawa 2003 p.9

[xx] Keio University’s criminologist and victimologist Koichi Miyazawa and Sapporo University criminologist Toshio Yoshida are among the awardees.

[xxi] Queen of Hungary and Bohemia (1740–1780), whose reign was marked by the War of the Austrian Succession (1740–1748) and the Seven Years' War (1756–1763). She was followed by her son Joseph II who is an example of an enlightened monarch. Joseph II , deeply impressed by Beccaria, abolishes death penalty and torture for Austria (Details at Schwind p.80).

[xxii] for a very similar phenomenon in Japan, the growth of the power of Buddhist monasteries, see Sampson Vol. 2 (1334-1615) p. 282 f. and p.152f. p.

[xxiii] Of course, known and interpreted by the representatives of the religion.

[xxiv] This was used ultimately for the justification of punishment.

[xxv] “Laws are the conditions by which free and independent human beings united themselves into a society since they could not enjoy their liberty since everyone was in war with everybody. They sacrificed a part of their rights to enjoy the rest of their rights in peace and security. The sum of all these sacrificed parts of their Human Rights is the material out of which the government is made.” Cesare Beccaria, German Translation 1788 p.10 (see footnote 31)

[xxvi] George Sansom 1958, A History of Japan, 3 vols. (London: Cresset Press), with numerous examples, especially II p.206,231,

[xxvii] My main reference is a valuable collection of papers published 1788 in German language. These papers have been printed in Breslau by Johann Friedrich Korn I. The publisher coordinated two volumes. The first volume has 300 pages. It contains a German translation of Beccaria’s work plus other material interesting for the enlightened intellectual. According to the “Nachrichten des Uebersetzers” ( News of the Translator), the text is a translation of the third edition of Beccaria’s work edited by Rinaldo Benvenuti (1781). The text of the original Italian anonymous edition was not changed. - . The first edition of the German text, published by Korn I in 1778, contained a commentary of Ferdinand Hommel 1722-1781 an enlightened German scholar of Leipzig University and an experienced high judge who explains Beccaria’s text and illustrates it by his own thoughts, well informed about the reality of criminal law in his time. In addition, the Commentary of Voltaire (1694-1784) is translated (p.207 – 273). Included in this collection are several letters of Jean Le Rond d’Alembert (1717–1783), the famous partner in the Encyclopedia. There are his letters to a certain Brother Frisio, obviously an Italian Roman Catholic enlightened priest. From these we know that d’Alembert gave “many good philosophers “ access to Beccaria’s Italian text – obviously the 2nd edition. The intellectuals could read it, the feedback was enthusiastic. In the book, we find two additional philosophical letters (p. 273-292) by Franz Zacchiroli and a short anonymous report on the Calas and Sirven scandal (p.293 ff.) . We find new detailed reports on how the Italian text of Beccaria’s book came into the hands of the Encyclopedists who in return pressed for the French translation of a book which they regarded as the apex of enlightened philosophical thinking, a book written “as a very appropriate defense of … unfortunate victims” (p.300).

The first volume is an interesting document. It tells us about the attention the enlightened intellectuals paid to Beccaria’s book and how they discussed it. The second volume has the title “Of Crime and Punishment. Counterarguments and many other things.” In the voice of Cesare Beccaria, a defense is written against accusations of a religious zealot who published an “Anti-Beccaria” treatise. The first part is a defense against the accusation that Beccaria is an enemy of the representatives of the feudal system. The second part is a defense against the allegation that Beccaria is an enemy of the religion (p.1-86). Further – mainly anonymous - expert statements on the dogmatic content of Beccaria’s book are printed on p.87 – 202 - especially on Beccaria’s opposition to the death penalty. We find an expertise of the famous scholar Carl von Sonnenfels 1733-1817. Finally, the publication includes a text of Ferdinand Hommel, edited by Karl Roessing. Hommel not only points out the systemic victimization of unwed mothers. Hommel’s text documents that Beccaria was reflected the intellectual climate of the thinking elite very well.

Roessing gives an interesting description of why Cesare Beccaria wrote his book (p.48 of the “Philosophische Gedanken ueber das Criminalrecht” footnote on page 48 and 49): Under torture, a robber did not confess to his crime against the personal physician of Beccaria and of his wife. But the offender confessed confronted with two eyewitnesses – confessed what he concealed under torture. That caused the Marquese to think about the uselessness of torture. Roessing quotes the source of this information, a certain Mr. Liquet who is regarded an “enemy” of the Encyclopedists, This alone – so Roessing 1788 – does not make his story wrong.

Margery Fry (1951) gives us another version how Beccaria’s book came into existence – according to her it is more a joint venture of the intellectual circle around the Verri brothers – Beccaria himself is depicted as having made only little own contributions. She relies on information by one of the Verri brothers – whom she does not quote in details (Margery Fry: The Arms of Law. 1951 p.49 ). This Verri brother reports not too friendly about Beccaria. The reasons for that might be that the universal fame of the young and individualistic Beccaria did not find the undivided enthusiasm of his promoters who might have felt “in the shadow”, feeling that their own intellectual merits have been silenced.

[xxviii] It is the style of the authors of this time, to not exactly quote and to give references to other authors to whom they owe ideas. The state of science was obviously still too shaky that exact quotations were deemed to be necessary.

[xxix] The historical context is described excellently in Hans - Dieter Schwind, Kriminologie – Eine praxisoprientietrte Einfuehrung mit Beispielen. Heidelberg (Kriminalistik Verlag) 2003 (13th edition) p.82-86.

[xxx] Beccaria, op. cit. p. 12-14

[xxxi] Beccaria 1788 p.1 and 2

[xxxii] Beccaria op. cit. Section 16 p.83 end of page. The other quotations are from the same book.

[xxxiii] Contemporary voices call Beccaria’s ideas a “defense of the suffering victims” (compare: Eine ungedruckte Nachricht… in the convolute of 1788 p.300). After the scandal of the Calas-case the justice system in France murdered the Sirven family – provoking a concerted echo of the enlightened thinkers in Europe.

[xxxiv] In the Convolute of 1788, this is the text of the commentary on p.207

[xxxv] References in footnote 31 of this paper

[xxxvi] References for Chaudron: Voltaire in Korn’s Convolut 1788 Vol. I p. 231-233, and for Sirven: in Korns Convolut 1788 Vol. I page 293 – 300.

[xxxvii] definitely a counterweight to all the libraries full of church related religious publications who informed what the church found right to believe!

[xxxviii] Please compare footnote 31 with details of the references. .

[xxxix] But Beccaria did not accept. A lost chance, as Hans Dieter Schwind (the criminologist who served as minister of justice himself, unlike Beccaria!), commented (Schwind 2003 p. 86/86). It is fair to assume that Diderot made the connection between the Russian Czaresse and Beccaria.

[xl] see reference under footnote 31. See the excellently informed John Lekschas : Ferdinand Hommel: Des Herren Marquis von Beccaria unsterbliches Werk von Verbrechen und Strafen. Breslau (Johan Friedrich Korn dem Aelteren) with an epilogue by John Lekschas, Berlin (Akademie) 1966, 281 p.:

[xli] Voltaire in footnote 31, Commentary IX p.231-233.

[xlii] Carl Ferdinand Hommel: Philosophische Gedanken ueber das Criminalrecht. Last item in the convolut of Korn 1788, FN *** on pages 58 – 66 gives a summary of the relevant contemporary literature from 1618 on. He reports: Brissot de Warwille , a French author, was awarded the award winner of a publicly announced competition organized by the “Academie de Charlons-sur-Marne” on the topic of state compensation for the torture of an innocent citizen. The publication of the award winning essay was announced (Berichte der Buchhandlung der Gelehrten 1782 X. From this – often overlooked – footnote we can infer that the discussion among the intellectuals was intense, public and guided by political decisions, e.g. to give an award for the best treatment of current issues. Voltaire himself got an award from the Academie of Bern, a sum of money which was donated for this purpose from a sponsor. From all this we can infer that the debate was a targeted publicity campaign.

[xliii] Rational choice

[xliv] compare Kirchhoff in FN 1

[xlv] that was clearly against the classical school).

[xlvi] In the language of victimology, this is called offender restitution. The offender is ordered to restitute the victim (Restitution orders). Clearly that does not correspond to the everyday language (compare the confusion about compensation or restitution already in Israel Drapkin and Emilio Viano: Victimology, a New Focus, Vol. IIa . Without any doubt, sciences develop their own terminology – victimology is no exception. It is a test how much authors are victimologists (developing allegiance to a victimological terminology) or how much they are still caught in the terminology of their “home faculties” (expressing adherence to a language which is no longer specific for the discipline.) .

[xlvii] In the language of victimology, this is called compensation: the state compensates.

[xlviii] “Should legislation take into account the interest of the injured person to a greater degree than today and if yes, how?” see Kirchhoff in footnote 1

[xlix] Edwin Sutherland: Criminology .Philadelphia and London (Lippincott), 1924 especially p..62—71. This chapter appears only in the first edition – it was eliminated by Sutherland from further editions.

[l] Sutherland refers to Ferri’s “Criminal Sociology” generally and specifically to Garofalo’s “Criminology” (in FN 5 and 9 of the first chapter). The “Italian or positive school” is dealt with on page 75 emphasizing its methodological flaws. Since then, it became tradition in sociology to use Lombroso as a favorite whipping boy. Ferri’s work was translated in America:

Enrico Ferri: Criminal Sociology. Translated by Joseph I. Kelly and John Lisle. Edited by William M. Smither with an Introduction by Charles A. Elwood and Quincy E. Meyers, Boston (Little, Brown and Co) 1917. (In the same series see the most important works of Rafaele Garofalo, Cesare Lombroso, and of the European elite in criminology were made accessible to the American reader).

Enrico Ferri: The Positive School of Criminology: Three lectures given at the University of Naples on April 22,23 and 24 1901, translated by Ernest Untermann, Chicago (Charles H. Kerr) 1913.

[li] Figueroa, Jose R. Hernandez, Tejera Diego Vicente at Pla, Francisco Fernandez: La Proteccion de la Victima de Delito. Habana ( Urbano Gody (ed.) Bibliotheca de Colegio de Abogados de la Habana) 1930 esp. pp. 75 and 76.

[lii] Another version of the history of “compensation” came from C.H. Rolphs (Annual Report of Victim Support UK 1987): According to Rolphs, Margery Fry 1935 heard from a friend about an African tribal chief. This chief made it a practice to collect from a murderer and his extended family the means to support the widow and her children.

Rolph, a policeman turned into journalist and author, knew Margery Fry personally. He was member of a committee, set up by the organization Justice and chaired by Margery Fry (personal communication of Helen Reeves to the author of December 15, 2005). Today, Margery Fry is acknowledged by members of the Anglo-American victim assistance community as the driving person behind the introduction of victim compensation laws. One of the NOVA awards carries her name. Victim Support UK refers to her role in compensation (): “she set the pace for what to come”. Her “The Arms of Law” 1951, London (Victor Gollancz Ltd. for the Howard League of Penal Reform) is still fascinating! It is partly a scientific work, partly a “scrapbook” (compare her own description of the book , Margery Fry 1951 p.2). Her article “Justice for Victims” (The Observer 1958 p.8) is a good example of creative journalistic social political activism. According to Helen Reeves, Margery Fry is regarded in most UK literature as the first “victimologist”, although that word is rarely used in the UK. With all due respect to Margery Fry’s great achievements, this author prefers a more professional usage of the term victimologist (see Kirchhoff in FN 1).

[liii] Osamu Nakata : Hanzai Seishin Igaku (Criminal psychiatry) Kongo shuppann 1972 p. 322 - compare Setsuko Richardson: Osamu Nagata – a scholar of some consideration 2005. (accepted for publication in the Victimologist) (on file with Tokiwa International Victimology Bibliography Online, forthcoming).

[liv] Koichi Miyazawa and Minoru Ohya: Victimology in Comparative Perspective. Tokyo (Seibundo) 1986

[lv] see the folder of the Graduate School of Victimology , Tokiwa University 2 year’s Master program:

[lvi] by Prof. Nobuho Tomita and by Prof. Senzu Mazuharu

[lvii] Prof. Abe (Computer Science), Prof. Dr. Chockalingam (Law, Criminology), Prof. Nishimura (Sociology), Prof. Dr. Dussich ( Psychology ), Prof. Dr. Kirchhoff (Law, Social Science) Prof. Morosawa: (Law) , Prof. Nagai (Psychology), Prof. Tomita (Law)

[lviii] Influential for the Christian Bible reflects and modifies rules of Hammurabi. These reflections are mirrored in the criminal law in Europe and then worldwide (compare Kirchhoff 1994, p. 12c under footnote 6 ).

[lix] E.g. work in progress by Jaco Barkhuizen: Chikan Victims in Public Transportation, Dr. Dissertation in progress 2005, Kiyoko Itagaki : Developing a curriculum for disaster nurses. Dr. Dissertation in progress 2005.

[lx] Two researchers Mitzuko Kawaguchi M.A. (Psych), Maiko Kobayashi M.Sc, M.Phil (Crim), and two administrative positions- Kazuo Nakamura (Manager), and Yumiko Sakaba-( Secretary) .

[lxi] International Perspectives in Victimology Vol.1 Nr. 1 December 2004, editor John P.J.Dussich

[lxii] Director Prof. Dr. Dussich is not only Founding Director of TIVI and professor at Tokiwa Daigaku. He holds a chair of victimology as well at California State University in Fresno. The name of the course is more dictated by the tradition in the World Society of Victimology and for marketing reasons.

[lxiii] directed by John P.J. Dussich, Director of TIVI, with participation of scholars from Hong Kong (3), India, Indonesia, Japan (2) and USA

[lxiv] Ibaraki Higaisya Shien Center, 1 430 1 Miwa, c/o Tokiwa Daigaku, F- Building, Mito-shi, Ibaraki, Japan 3108585

[lxv] Women's Net RISE, 2-5-415, Bizen-machi, Mito-shi, Ibaraki-ken, 310-0024, Twel: Office:  029-221-7242, Fax Office:  029-225-6131 , Representative: Kazuyo Mitomi. Details are available from Yumiko Sakaba (tivi@tokiwa.ac.jp)

[lxvi] See the references in: Hidemichi Morosawa, Higaishagaku. Tokyo (Seibundo) 1998, 2nd edition 2001 p.522

-----------------------

Sociology

Philosophy, Ethics

Community

Organization

Medicine

Social Work

Law

Study of Victimology

Social

Work

Political

Sciences

Psychology

Study of

Victimology

Medical

Sciences

Law

Sociology

Nursing

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download